Telangana High Court
Pilli Rama Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 24 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12368 of 2025
DATE: 24.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Pilli Rama Raju and others
.....petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11
And
The State of Telangana and another.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11 in
C.C.No.34 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 read
with 149 of IPC.
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2021, the
petitioners, along with other BRS/TRS party leaders and
workers, allegedly conducted a press meeting at IKP Centre,
Arjalabavi Village, Nalgonda, without wearing face masks,
without maintaining social distancing, and in violation of the
COVID-19 guidelines and the Model Code of Conduct for the
MLC Elections, 2021. Based on the complaint lodged by the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural Police
Station, Crime No.282 of 2021 was registered for the offences
under Sections 143 and 188 read with 149 IPC. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which was taken on file
as C.C.No.34 of 2025 against the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as Sri D. Arun
Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State. Though notice was served upon
respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations in the charge sheet are omnibus in nature and do
not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. He
contended that the prosecution under Section 188 IPC is barred
in the absence of a written complaint as mandated under
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
Section 195 Cr.P.C., and therefore the entire proceedings are
vitiated. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged with
unexplained delay, the prosecution is politically motivated, and
the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he prayed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the
material on record shows that the petitioners and others
conducted a public meeting without adhering to the COVID-19
protocol and in violation of the Model Code of Conduct during
the MLC Elections, 2021. The investigation, including witness
statements and video footage, prima facie establishes the
involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. He
submitted that the allegations require appreciation of evidence
during trial and, therefore, at the stage of quashing, the
proceedings should not be interfered with and are liable to be
continued.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the petitioners were charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 143 and 188 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is specifically contended by the
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is a bar under
Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., whereunder, a written complaint
has to be filed by the public servant/authorized officer, the
Police has to follow the same, but the same is not followed in the
present case. Further, at this stage, it is imperative to note the
relevant Sections, which are as follows:
7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:
Section 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated
by public servant.
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such
order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to
take certain order with certain property in his possession
or under his management, disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction,
annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed,
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one month or with fine which may extend
to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human
life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or
affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.
Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should
intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience
as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025of the order which he disobeys, and that his
disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration: An order is promulgated by a public
servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,
directing that a religious procession shall not pass down
a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and
thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the
offence defined in this section”.
8. Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-
“(i) (a) of any offence punishable under Sections
172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence, except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”
9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a perusal of
Section 188 of IPC makes clear that to take cognizance there
should be a written complaint and such complaint should be
filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the
officer above his rank. Further, Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., defines
complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the
Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such
complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C has to be followed. Therefore, the
first information report, charge sheet and the order taking
cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
10. Further, it is significant to note the judgement of the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.
Hermareddy 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
“8. We agree with the view expressed by the
learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the
course of the same transaction an offence for which no
complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 196
(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence
for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under
that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to
split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused
for the offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses
that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of IPC including other penal
provisions i.e., 143 of IPC. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Hermareddy (supra) it is clear that if the
offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences
1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
contemplated under Section 191 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to
split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other
offences. In view of the above, the FIR culminating in taking
cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence,
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is
nothing but abuse of process of law.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.34 of 2025 on the
file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for
Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 24.07.2026
SAI
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12368 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12368 of 2025
Date: 24.07.2026
SAI
